HOLTE, Judge.

Plaintiff Cole Thomas Moyer challenges the Army Board for Correction of Military Records’ denial of relief from debt owed to the U.S. government for his disenrollment from the Virginia Tech Army Reserve Officers’ Training Corps. Plaintiff also seeks a refund of payments made to the government following his wrongful disenrollment from the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps. Following an Amended Complaint and the government’s production of the Administrative Record, plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the administrative record, and the government filed a cross-motion for judgment on the administrative record. For the following reasons, the Court denies plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record and grants the government’s Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record.

I. Factual Background

The Court begins by discussing the background of plaintiff’s disenrollment from the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (“ROTC”) program and then summarizes the Army Board for Correction of Military Records’ (“ABCMR”) denial of plaintiff’s request for relief.

A. Plaintiff’s Disenrollment from the ROTC Program

On 5 September 2017, plaintiff “enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (“USAR”) and, with the Secretary of the Army, executed an Army Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (“SROTC”) Scholarship Cadet Contract, in which the Army agreed to adhere to its regulations, pay a bevy of financial benefits for three years (six semesters), and commission [plaintiff] as an officer in the Army upon his successful completion of the ROTC program (the [ROTC] Contract”).” Pl.’s Mot. for J. on the Admin. R. (“Pl.’s MJAR”) at 2, ECF No. 13 (citing Admin. R. (“AR”) at 35–46 (Signed and Dated ROTC Enlistment Contract), ECF No. 12-1)). 1 In exchange, plaintiff agreed to maintain a satisfactory grade point average (“GPA”) and meet USAR’s medical and physical fitness standards. See AR at 41 (Signed and Dated ROTC Enlistment Contract) (noting GPA, medical, and physical fitness requirements). Plaintiff additionally agreed if he became “disenrolled from the ROTC program for breach of contractual terms or any other disenrollment criteria established now or in the future by Army regulations,” he would be subject to enlistment in the active-duty Army or required to reimburse the United States for any financial assistance paid as part of the contract, plus interest. See AR at 44 (Signed and Dated ROTC Enlistment Contract). Importantly plaintiff further agreed “to inform the [Professor of Military Science (“PMS”)] of any changes in my eligibility (medical and nonmedical) based on current or revised requirements as soon as I know or should have known of a change in my eligibility status. Failure to so advise the PMS may result in disenrollment.” AR at 45 (Signed and Dated ROTC Enlistment Contract) (emphasis omitted). “On or around July 27, 2018, [plaintiff] received one additional year (two semesters) of benefits under the Contract,” so “inclusive of this one-year extension, [plaintiff] was entitled to eight full semesters of financial benefits under the terms of the Contract.” Pl.’s MJAR at 2.

While subject to the ROTC contract, plaintiff served in the Virginia Tech Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (“ROTC”) and “majored in Business Information Technology with a concentration in Operations and Supply Chain Management. AR at 4 (17 Oct. 2023 ABCMR Record of Proceedings and Board Vote). He also obtained a minor in Chinese Studies and traveled to China for two summers of language immersion through the Project Global Officer Program.” AR at 4 (17 Oct. 2023 ABCMR Record of Proceedings and Board Vote). Plaintiff “did well in the ROTC program and at Virginia Tech academically,” maintained a 3.64 GPA, and “was ranked 14 out of 112 cadets by his senior rater.” AR at 4 (17 Oct. 2023 ABCMR Record of Proceedings and Board Vote).

On 17 December 2020, plaintiff completed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (“e-QIP”) “to obtain the requisite security clearance for his commission.” Pl.’s MJAR at 2; see AR at 82–122 (Pl.’s 17 Dec. 2020 e-QIP Response); AR, Part 2 (“AR”) at 229–69 (Pl.’s 17 Dec. 2020 e-QIP Response, labeled “Top Secret”), ECF No. 12-2. Section 23 of the e-QIP included questions regarding plaintiff’s illegal use of drugs, in which plaintiff indicated he had “experimented with cocaine use on two different occasions” and “experimentally smoked marijuana 2-3 times.” See AR at 115–16 (Pl.’s 17 Dec. 2020 e-QIP Response).

Shortly after submitting his e-QIP response, on 7 January 2021, Professor of Military Science (“PMS”) Colonel James Cogbill, counseled plaintiff regarding his responses to Section 23 of the e-QIP, where he informed plaintiff he was initiating plaintiff’s disenrollment from the ROTC program for breach of contract and undesirable character evidenced by the use of illegal drugs. See AR at 124–25 (Col. Cogbill’s 7 Jan. 2021 Counseling Statement). Colonel Cogbill also suspended plaintiff’s scholarship benefits by placing him on a Leave of Absence and informed plaintiff of his right, should he elect, to have a board of officers consider his case. See AR at 124 (Col. Cogbill’s 7 Jan. 2021 Counseling Statement). Specifically, Colonel Cogbill noted:

(1) [Plaintiff’s] pattern of drug use is a serious offense that would make [him] ineligible to remain in SROTC. [Plaintiff] failed to disclose this drug use previously as required by [his] SROTC contract . . . .

(2) As [plaintiff’s] Professor of Military Science, I am initiating [his] disenrollment from the ROTC program . . . for the following:

Undesirable character demonstrated by cheating on examinations, stealing, unlawful possession, use, distribution, manufacture, sale (including attempts) of any controlled substances, as listed or defined in 21 USC 812, discreditable incidents with civil or university authorities, falsifying academic records or any forms of academic dishonesty, failure to pay just debts, or similar acts. Such acts may also be characterized as misconduct. ...

Breach of contract (including formerly used term willful evasion). (Note: Breach is defined as any act, performance or nonperformance on the part of a student that breaches the terms of the contract regardless of whether the act, performance or nonperformance was done with specific intent to breach the contract or whether the student knew that the act, performance or nonperformance breaches the contract). . . .

(3) If you elect, a board of officers will be appointed by the brigade commander in accordance with the formal procedures . . . to consider your disenrollment case. You have the right to appear personally before the board. You are entitled to be assisted in the preparation of the hearing by any reasonable available military officer (who need not be an attorney) or may hire civilian counsel at your expense. However, the counsel may not represent you at the hearing, although counsel may be available to give advice. At least one school official will be invited to observe any hearings that may arise from the appointment of such board. . . The requirement for appointment of a board of officers will be waived should you choose to voluntarily waive this right in writing within 10 days of formal notification of pending disenrollment.

AR at 124 (Col. Cogbill’s 7 Jan. 2021 Counseling Statement). On 8 January 2025, plaintiff marked “I agree” on the counseling form and digitally signed it. See AR at 125 (Col. Cogbill’s 7 Jan. 2021 Counseling Statement).

On 25 January 2021, plaintiff received an indebtedness estimation from Defense Financing and Accounting Service (“DFAS”) totaling $121,013.50, the purported amount plaintiff would owe the government if disenrolled from ROTC. See AR at 127–28 (25 Jan. 2021 Notification of Debt). On 3 February 2023, the formal disenrollment process began, and Colonel Cogbill formally notified plaintiff of his intent to disenroll plaintiff from the ROTC program under Army Regulation 145-1 for “undesirable character as demonstrated by use of controlled substances and breach of the ROTC contract.” See AR at 130–33 (3 Feb. 2021 Initiation of Disenrollment). The notification further advised plaintiff of his due process and appellate rights, including his right to consult with a military officer or civilian legal counsel, appear at a hearing, present matters, and object to disenrollment and the establishment, amount, and recoupment of any indebtedness. See AR at 130–33 (3 Feb. 2021 Initiation of Disenrollment).

On 15 February 2021, plaintiff received Colonel Cogbill’s formal notification. See AR at 134 (3 Feb. 2021 Initiation of Disenrollment). Specifically, plaintiff elected to have a disenrollment hearing and acknowledged:

I have received and will thoroughly read the above Notification of Disenrollment from the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) – Due Process and Appellate Rights of Scholarship/Nonscholarship memorandum, hereinafter “Notification.”

If I have any questions or concerns about my rights, responsibilities, and obligations regarding my disenrollment from the ROTC Program, that I may seek answers from whatever lawful, appropriate source or authority I choose to consult about those questions or concerns.

It is my responsibility to understand without any reservation, my rights, responsibilities and obligations, as well as to fully understand the nature, the process and the consequences of the proceedings, as explained in the above Notification, or as will be explained to me by the counselor or legal advisor of my choice, as applicable.

If I elect to NOT exercise my right to consult with a counselor or legal advisor of my choice so that I may fully understand the nature, the process and the consequences of the disenrollment proceedings, that my failure to exercise that right will constitute and be deemed a full, final, knowing, voluntary and nonappealable waiver of that right. I further understand that I must avail myself of the opportunity to consult with a counselor or legal advisor of my choice before the date the board is held and that only one (1) continuance may be granted, in the exclusive discretion of the Board President, for reasonable and just cause or reasons that are not my fault.

If I received from ROTC a bonus, any incentives and/or am a scholarship Cade, that once the approval authority terminated my scholarship in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, my scholarship may be irreversibly offered to another qualified applicant as determined exclusively by the Army (USACC).

The recommendations of my Professor of Military Science, my Brigade Commander and/or anyone else in my chain of command that are part of my disenrollment packet are not binding upon final approval authority, who may reach a different conclusion after considering my entire disenrollment packet.

AR at 134 (3 Feb. 2021 Initiation of Disenrollment).

On 16 March 2021, three officers (“Disenrollment Board”) were appointed to determine plaintiff’s suitability for retention in the ROTC program: Captain Brian J. Burchett, Captain Sarah B. Carriker, and Captain Johnathan D. Miller. See AR at 141–42 (16 Mar. 2021 Board Appointment); AR at 310 (16 Mar. 2021 Memorandum re Appointment of a Formal Board of Officers/Investigating Officer). Captain Burchett served as the Disenrollment Board president. See AR at 144 (17 Mar. 2021 Board Summarized Transcript); AR at 310 (16 Mar. 2021 Memorandum re Appointment of a Formal Board of Officers/Investigating Officer). A recorder, Captain Ian Q. McBride, was also present during the hearing. See AR at 144 (17 Mar. 2021 Board Summarized Transcript ); AR at 310 (16 Mar. 2021 Memorandum re Appointment of a Formal Board of Officers/Investigating Officer).

On 17 March 2021, the Disenrollment Board convened. See AR at 144–50 (17 Mar. 2021 Board Summarized Transcript). Even though Army Regulation 145-1, 10-2(d) and United States Army Cadet Command (“USACC”) Pamphlet 145-4 ¶ 8-3(e) mandated the Disenrollment Board president be a field grade officer, with limited exceptions, see Army Regulation 145-1, 10-2(d), USACC Pamphlet 145-4 ¶ 8-3(d), at the time of the appointment Captain Burchett was not a field grade officer, see AR at 309 (James B. Cogbill’s 27 May 2021 Memorandum of Record re Exigency for Disenrollment Board Proceedings for plaintiff). 2 This was noted in a document filed two months later on 27 May 2021, stating: “We did not have an available field grade officer to conduct the board due to our two field grade officers being the Battalion XO and OIC of Radford University, who were actively engaged in several other priorities and planning operations. As such, CPT Brian Burchett was appointed [as president] to conduct the board.” AR at 309 (James B. Cogbill’s 27 May 2021 Memorandum of Record re Exigency for Disenrollment Board Proceedings for plaintiff). At the beginning of the hearing, the board president explained to plaintiff he had the right to obtain civilian counsel and have a military officer appointed to assist him with the proceeding, but plaintiff responded he did not have counsel and did not have, nor a desire to have, a military officer appointed to assist him. See AR at 144–45 (17 Mar. 2021 Board Summarized Transcript). Further, the board president read plaintiff his rights, and plaintiff stated he understood his rights. See AR at 145 (17 Mar. 2021 Board Summarized Transcript) (“[BOARD PRESIDENT]: read rights, Do you understand?

[PLAINTIFF]: yes understand[.]”). 3 After acknowledging he was aware drug use was prohibited under the ROTC contract, plaintiff confirmed he had used illegal drugs while in the ROTC, as he had previously reported on his security clearance document. See AR at 149–51 (17 Mar. 2021 Board Summarized Transcript). Plaintiff also affirmatively chose not to challenge the impartiality of the board members. See AR at 145 (17 Mar. 2021 Board Summarized Transcript). Lastly, during the hearing, plaintiff provided 19 character references and four witnesses supporting his retention in the ROTC program. See AR at 151–63 (17 Mar. 2021 Board Summarized Transcript), 193–211 (Memoranda in Support of Pl.’s Character Fitness).

After the hearing, the Disenrollment Board issued several findings. See AR at 317–18 (17 Mar. 2021 Memorandum for Appointing Authority re Executive Summary for Pl.). The Disenrollment Board found plaintiff “enter[ed] into a valid . . . ROTC Contract,” but “knowingly violated the terms of the contract” as he “knew that consuming illicit drugs was prohibited before and after contracting.” Id. at 317–18. Noting plaintiff “could not explain why he did not disclose drug use before his . . . e-QIP questionnaire,” the Disenrollment Board found plaintiff “did not consider his contract or security clearance when making his decisions,” which “demonstrates apathetic behavior and attitude.” Id. Accordingly, the Disenrollment Board recommended against plaintiff’s retention in ROTC, and required him to pay the $121,013.50 indebtedness identified by DFAS. See id. at 317–18; AR at 127–28 (25 Jan. 2021 Notification of Debt); AR at 272 (DA Form 1574-2, Report of Proceedings by Board of Officers). The Disenrollment Board, however, found plaintiff should be permitted to repay his debt via active-duty service if the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (“DODCAF”) determined positive eligibility. See AR at 317–18 (17 Mar. 2021 Memorandum for Appointing Authority re Executive Summary for Pl.); AR at 272 (DA Form 1574-2, Report of Proceedings by Board of Officers). 4

3 The transcript produced at the disenrollment board hearing is not a direct transcript of the proceedings, but rather a summary of the proceedings stylized as a transcript. 4 The parties at oral argument were under the misapprehension both the Disenrollment Board and Colonel had recommended against active duty in lieu of repayment. See Tr. at 6:16–10:4 (“THE COURT: [O]n 17 March, 2021, the Disenrollment Board recommended . . . [plaintiff] ‘should be ordered to active duty.’ . . . [T]he party’s briefing seems to suggest that Colonel Cogbill recommended against active duty in lieu of monetary back pay. But [in his 31 March, 2021 decision] it looked like Colonel Cogbill [took the Board’s position and] . . . ‘recommend[ed] payback of scholarship funds, and . . . active duty in lieu of monetary payback.’ [GOVERNMENT:] . . . [T]hat–your reading there–is correct. . . . I came in here for some reason with the understanding that Colonel Cogbill had [recommended against active duty], but that appears, at least right now, to be incorrect. . . . [PLAINTIFF:] I came in here with the same impression. . . . THE COURT: [Page 12 of the ABCMR report says] ‘a board of officers did not recommend [p]laintiff be called to active duty in lieu of monetary back pay.’ It looks like the ABCMR was perhaps the first to start the confusion. [GOVERNMENT:] That would appear correct.”); see also Tr. at 11:14–21 (“THE COURT: [T]he Disenrollment Board, Colonel Cogbill and Colonel Thompson all recommended [p]laintiff be allowed to serve on active duty in lieu of monetary payback. And then Major General Davis, in his discretion, denied that request. Is that a fair summary? [GOVERNMENT:] That appears to be a fair summary.”). Army regulations could be read to require decision makers to document why a Cadet is not allowed to enlist in lieu of repayment, which Major General Davis, in making such a decision, did not do. See Tr. at 16:1–20:3 (“THE COURT: [Army pamphlet paragraph 8-6.b seems to say] if [being] ordered to active duty comes off the table, then there must be some documentation. . . .

On March 30, 2021, DODCAF granted plaintiff his Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (“TS/SCI”) clearance. See AR at 176 (6 Apr. 2021 Clearance Notification); AR at 350 (Active Cadet Record Brief). On 31 March 2021, Colonel Cogbill recommended plaintiff be disenrolled from ROTC and be required to repay the entire debt. See AR at 180 (Col. Cogbill’s 31 Mar. 2021 Memorandum re Request for Disenrollment of plaintiff).

On 27 May 2021, Colonel Cogbill wrote a memorandum acknowledging the requirement to appoint a field grade officer as president of the Disenrollment Board and stating military exigency required he appoint a Captain to preside. See AR at 309 (James B. Cogbill’s 27 May 2021 Memorandum of Record re Exigency for Disenrollment Board Proceedings for plaintiff). Specifically, he explained the two field grade officers in his command served in important leadership positions at another university and were not available. See AR at 309 (James B. Cogbill’s 27 May 2021 Memorandum of Record re Exigency for Disenrollment Board Proceedings for plaintiff).

On 19 August 2021, Colonel Thompson, plaintiff’s brigade commander, concurred with Colonel Cogbill’s recommendations. See AR at 215 (19 Aug. 2021 Mem. re Pl.’s Disenrollment Recommendation for Cadet Scholarship). On 28 June 2022, Major General Davis, U.S. Army Cadet Command, disenrolled plaintiff and ordered he pay the $121,013.50 spent by the Army in support of his education. See AR at 213–14 (28 June 2022 Mem. re Disenrollment from U.S. Army ROTC Program).

After completing college and receiving his degree, plaintiff “was initially employed from May 2021 to February 2022 by Immersion Consulting LLC,” and since February 2022 has “been employed with Booz Allen Hamilton.” AR at 31 (Pl.’s 19 Dec. 2022 Letter re Records Correction Application). “Both positions required [plaintiff] have a TS/SCI Clearance,” which he has maintained since his initial approval in April 2021. AR at 31 (Pl.’s 19 Dec. 2022 Letter re Records Correction Application). Moreover, plaintiff has “maintained a completely clean criminal record.” AR at 31 (Pl.’s 19 Dec. 2022 Letter re Records Correction Application).

B. Advisory Opinion and the ABCMR’s Decision

On 19 December 2022, plaintiff filed an application with the ABCMR. See AR at 23–150 (Pl.’s 19 Dec. 2022 Application for Correction of Military R. under 10 U.S.C. § 1552 and Attachs.); AR at 151–212 (Attachs. to Pl.’s 19 Dec. 2022 Application for Correction of Military R. under 10 U.S.C. § 1552). In his application, plaintiff wrote a letter to the Board, “request[ing] correction of [his] military service record and relief from [his] indebtedness.” AR at 28 (Pl.’s 19 Dec. 2022 Letter re Records Correction Application). Specifically, plaintiff

[GOVERNMENT:] I think what it’s saying is that . . . if you are not going to require a re[coupment] or a call to active duty, . . . then you need the complete written justification. . . . [But] we didn’t understand that to be an issue in this case. . . . [PLAINTIFF:] I don’t have anything further.”). As plaintiff does not request active duty, the issue of whether this was arbitrary and capricious is not before the Court. See Tr. at 12:19–13:6 (“THE COURT: Did Plaintiff request active duty in lieu of monetary payback? . . . [PLAINTIFF:] Before the ABCMR, no. . . . THE COURT: So is this issue part of Plaintiff’s grounds for error on the part of the ABCMR? [PLAINTIFF:] It is not.”).

stated: “I am requesting that my debt to the U.S. Government as a result of my Disenrollment be forgiven because of material legal errors committed by Army ROTC during the process, as well as the inequity and injustice imposed upon me when considering all facts and circumstances of what happened. In the alternative, I recognize that I did receive a substantial amount of money from the U.S. Government for tuition and I did not serve any time in the Army. If the Board determines that there were legal errors and/or that my separation and resulting debt was either unjust or inequitable but also determines that complete debt relief is not an equitable result, I respectfully request a reduction of 50% of the debt owed.” AR at 28 (Pl.’s 19 Dec. 2022 Letter re Records Correction Application). Plaintiff argued given his approved security clearance and the board’s recommendation he be allowed to enlist instead of incurring a debt, it was unjust to charge him the full cost of his tuition. See AR at 32 (Pl.’s 19 Dec. 2022 Letter re Records Correction Application).

Plaintiff further claimed material legal errors existed in his disenrollment process. See AR at 28 (Pl.’s 19 Dec. 2022 Letter re Records Correction Application). First, plaintiff believed no contract or regulation required him to self-report drug use as a member of the ROTC, and his use of illegal drugs did not violate the terms of his contract because he was not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. See AR at 32 (Pl.’s 19 Dec. 2022 Letter re Records Correction Application), 48 (Pl.’s Attorney’s 17 Nov. 2022 Letter re Pl.’s Disenrollment). Second, plaintiff averred Colonel Cogbill erred when he appointed a Captain to be the president of the Disenrollment Board because Army policy required that the president be a field grade officer or, in the alternative, that Colonel Cogbill make a contemporaneous determination in writing that a field grade officer is “not practical due to military exigencies.” See AR at 49 (Pl.’s Attorney’s 17 Nov. 2022 Letter re Pl.’s Disenrollment) (citing USACC Pam 145-5 ¶ 8-3d). Third, plaintiff contended he was not read his rights under Article 31 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice using the Army’s rights warning form. See AR at 49 (Pl.’s Attorney’s 17 Nov. 2022 Letter re Pl.’s Disenrollment). Plaintiff lastly argued he was never advised of his rebuttal rights by Colonel Cogbill after the Disenrollment Board made findings and recommendations, and had he been properly advised of his rebuttal rights, he would have presented the same legal errors to the Disenrollment Board. See AR at 50–51 (Pl.’s Attorney’s 17 Nov. 2022 Letter re Pl.’s Disenrollment).

“On 30 May 2023, in the processing of this case, the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff G1 (“ODCS”) provided an advisory opinion regarding the applicant’s request for remission or cancellation of ROTC indebtedness.” AR at 16 (17 Oct. 2023 ABCMR Record of Proceedings and Board Vote); see AR at 22 (ODCS’s 30 May 2023 Advisory Opinion regarding ROTC Scholarship Debt Relief). The Advisory Opinion stated: “After careful review our office recommends the [B]oard to disapprove the applicant’s request. Based on ROTC contract . . . signed 5 September 2017, [plaintiff] acknowledged reasons for Government reimbursement if service obligation is not met.” AR at 22 (ODCS’s 30 May 2023 Advisory Opinion regarding ROTC Scholarship Debt Relief). “On 5 June 2023, the Army Review Boards Agency Case Management Division provided the applicant the advisory opinion for review and comment. He did not respond.” AR at 16 (17 Oct. 2023 ABCMR Record of Proceedings and Board Vote); see AR at 21 (Department of the Army’s 5 June 2023 Notification of ODCS’s Advisory Opinion).

On 17 October 2023, in a unanimous decision, the three-member ABCMR adopted the Advisory Opinion’s recommendation and held: “The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.” AR at 18 (17 Oct. 2023 ABCMR Record of Proceedings and Board Vote); see AR at 1 (20 Oct. 2023 Decision letter from ABCMR Director) (informing plaintiff of denial of his application). In denying plaintiff’s application, the ABCMR reasoned:

1. The Board determined the evidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision. As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case.

2. After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The applicant’s contentions, the military record, and regulatory guidance were carefully considered.

a. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was accepted into an Army ROTC scholarship program. He fully understood and accepted the terms of his enrollment when he authenticated his contract. He agreed that if he were disenrolled from the ROTC Program for any reason, he would have to repay his scholarship debt or be ordered to active duty in the rank/grade of PV1/E-1 for an appropriate number of years. He breached the terms of the ROTC contract by use of a controlled substance and failure to disclose use of the controlled substance.

b. As he was found in breach of his ROTC contract, he was accordingly notified of his disenrollment from the program. His case was considered by a disenrollment board and that board found he did breach the terms of the ROTC contract in whole or in part due to undesirable character as demonstrated by use of a controlled substance and failure to disclose use of a controlled substance. The disenrollment board determined he should not be retained as a scholarship or as a non-scholarship cadet and he should be required to repay the indebtedness; not be retained. The disenrollment board determined he should be ordered to active duty in enlisted status if DOD CAF determined positive eligibility. The recommendations of the board were approved.

c. The Board determined the applicant entered into a valid Army ROTC Cadet Contract. He received advanced educational assistance in the form of ROTC scholarship monies from the U.S. Government in an amount that that constitutes a valid debt to the U.S. Government. There are two ways for an ROTC debt to be remitted: either repayment of the educational debt or service as an enlisted member of an active component. The Board found no evidence the applicant enlisted in a regular component in the grade of private/E-1.

AR at 16–17 (17 Oct. 2023 ABCMR Record of Proceedings and Board Vote).

II. Procedural Background

After the ABCMR’s vote, plaintiff filed his complaint with this court on 19 July 2024. See Compl., ECF No. 1. On 19 October 2024, the government filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing statutes, rather than contracts, “are the exclusive source of law governing the compensation rights of members of the military.” See Gov’t’s Mot. to Dismiss (“MTD”) at 4 (citation omitted), ECF No. 6. On 14 November 2024, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint, rendering the government’s Motion to Dismiss moot. See Pl.’s Mot. for Leave to Am. the Compl. (“Pl.’s Mot.”), ECF No. 7. On 15 November 2024, the government filed a response explaining it did not oppose plaintiff’s motion. See Gov’t’s Resp. to Pl.’s Mot. (“Gov’t’s Resp.”), ECF No. 8. On 18 November 2024, the Court granted plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint. See 18 November 2024 Order, ECF No. 9.

On 19 November 2024, plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint. See Am. Compl., ECF No. 10. On 4 December 2024, the parties filed a joint motion for scheduling order, proposing filing and briefing deadlines. See Joint Mot. for Scheduling Order, ECF No. 11. The same day, the Court granted the motion in a non-PDF Order.

On 3 January 2025, the government filed the Administrative Record. See AR Certificate of Authenticity at 1. On 31 January 2025, plaintiff filed his MJAR. See Pl.’s MJAR. On 14 March 2025, the government responded and filed its Cross-MJAR. See Gov’t’s Cross-MJAR and Resp. to Pl.’s MJAR (“Cross-MJAR”), ECF No. 15. On 4 April 2025, plaintiff replied and responded to the government’s Cross-MJAR. See Pl.’s Reply and Resp. to Gov’t’s Cross-MJAR (“MJAR Reply”), ECF No. 16. On 25 April 2025, the government replied. See Gov’t’s Reply in Supp. of its Cross-MJAR (“Cross-MJAR Reply”), ECF No. 17. On 9 May 2025, the government filed an appendix of any agency-specific rules, instructions, policies, and regulations relied on by the parties and not codified in the current version of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”). See App. of Agency-Specific Rules, Instrs., Policies, and Regulations, ECF No. 18. The Court held oral argument on 8 July 2025. See 30 May 2025 Order, ECF No. 19; 8 July 2025 Oral Arg. Tr. (“Tr.”), ECF No. 21.

III. Parties’ Arguments

In his opening brief, plaintiff requests the Court: “(1) set-aside [plaintiff]’s disenrollment[;] (2) cancel [plaintiff]’s indebtedness to the [g]overnment[;] and (3) order the [g]overnment to refund the amount [plaintiff] has paid servicing that debt.” Pl.’s MJAR at 1. In doing so, plaintiff introduces three major arguments and cites several character references and argues “consistent with [his] character, he honestly answered Section 23 of the e-QIP and freely disclosed a limited and experimental use of controlled substances.” Id. at 2–3; see AR at 151–63 (17 Mar. 2021 Board Summarized Transcript), 193–211 (Memoranda in Support of Pl.’s Character Fitness), 330–46 (Memoranda in Support of Pl.’s Character Fitness).

First, challenging procedural violations, plaintiff argues the government “violated Army Regulation 145-1, 10-2(d) and USACC Pamphlet 145-4 ¶ 8-3 when it appointed a captain as president of the Disenrollment Board without contemporaneously documenting whether a field

- 10 -

grade officer was reasonably available or whether a military exigency existed at the time of appointment.” See Pl.’s MJAR at 9–12 (citation modified). Second, noting Army regulations, plaintiff argues the government “violated USACC pamphlet 145-4, ¶ 8-5 when it did not properly advise [plaintiff] of his rights prior to his testifying before the Disenrollment Board.” Id. at 12. Specifically, plaintiff argues “the disenrollment hearing transcript only states that [plaintiff] was ‘read rights,’” and “there is no evidence [plaintiff] was fully advised of [his] rights at any time during the disenrollment hearing.” Pl.’s MJAR at 12–13. Third, plaintiff argues “the board acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it upheld [plaintiff]’s disenrollment without considering the Army’s failure to adhere to its established procedures” because the record “demonstrates that the ABMCR entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, namely that [plaintiff]’s disenrollment was procedurally flawed in several respects.” Id. at 13–14 (citing AR at 7–8 (20 Oct. 2023 Decision letter from ABCMR Director)).

IV. Applicable Law

A. Judgment on the Administrative Record

For a motion for judgment on the administrative record, plaintiff bears the burden to prove through the administrative record the Board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law, or unsupported by substantial evidence. See Chambers v. United States, 417 F.3d 1218, 1227 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Application of the arbitrary and capricious standard of review “does not require a reweighing of the evidence, but a determination whether the conclusion being reviewed is supported by substantial evidence.” Heisig v. United States, 719 F.2d 1153, 1157 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (emphasis omitted); see also Calloway v. Brownlee, 366 F. Supp. 2d 43, 53 (D.D.C. 2005) (“[A]n agency action is arbitrary and capricious if the agency . . . has entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the case presented.”). So long as the Board followed applicable statutes or regulations, considered the relevant evidence, and reached a reasonable conclusion, a court will not disturb the Board’s decision. Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed. Cir. 2011). A court may set aside an agency’s decision if the agency “‘entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or the decision is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.’” Ala. Aircraft Indus., Inc. v. United States, 586 F.3d 1372, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)) (cleaned up). “Orderly government requires that the judiciary be as scrupulous not to interfere with legitimate Army matters as the Army must be scrupulous not to intervene in judicial matters.” Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 94 (1953); see also Roth v. United States, 378 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing Orloff, 345 U.S. at 94) (“In the military arena, [there is an] admonition against court interference with military matters . . . .”); Dodson v. United States, 988 F.2d 1199, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“[T]he military is entitled to great deference in the governance of its affairs.”).

B. ROTC Disenrollment

- 11 - A cadet’s disenrollment from the Army ROTC is governed by Army Regulation (“Army Reg.”) 145-1 (dated 22 July 1996) 5 and USACC Pamphlet 145-4 (dated 1 April 2020), Chapter 8, which establish the procedural requirements for removing cadets who fail to meet program standards. The Army may disenroll a cadet for various reasons, including misconduct, breach of contract, or illegal drug use. See Army Reg. 145-1 ¶ 3-43a; see also USACC Pamphlet 145-4 ¶ 8-2a (“[Army Regulation] 145-1 requires initiation of Cadet disenrollment actions for the bases listed in paragraph 3-43a (1)-(16).”). When a cadet is subject to disenrollment, they are provided with due process protections through written notification, the opportunity to present evidence, and, if required, a disenrollment board hearing. See Army Reg. 145-1 ¶ 3-43. A disenrollment board—appointed by the PMS, brigade commander, or region commander—is convened when a cadet is being considered for disenrollment due to misconduct, failure to meet ethical and character requirements, or contractual breaches. See id. ¶ 3-43b; USACC Pamphlet 145-4 ¶ 8-3a. The board consists of a minimum of one officer, and the transcripts of proceedings will be a typed summary of proceedings unless sworn statements were used. See USACC Pamphlet 145-4 ¶ 8-3b-c, e. Further, a field grade officer must serve as the board president unless the appointing authority determines, in writing, due to military exigencies appointing such officer is not practical. See id. ¶ 8-3d. The parties agreed at oral argument the procedures within USACC Pamphlet 145-4 were binding upon Colonel Cogbill, which “required [him] to appoint the disenrollment board” according to the procedures in the USACC, and Paragraph 8-3d “requires that documentation [of military exigency] to be done at the time of appointment.” Tr. 5:24–6:15. The PMS must notify the cadet of the intent to initiate disenrollment proceedings and include the basis for disenrollment in the notification memorandum. See USACC Pamphlet 145-4 ¶ 8-3b-c. The cadet is then placed on Leave of Absence status, suspending scholarship benefits and subsistence allowances. See id. ¶ 8-3c; Army Reg. 145-1 ¶ 3-43b–c. Cadets undergoing a disenrollment board are entitled to appear in person, review and challenge evidence, cross-examine and object to the testimony of witnesses, present their own witnesses, introduce evidence in their defense, testify on their own behalf if they choose, challenge board members for bias, and dispute the validity or amount of the proposed debt. See Army Reg. 145-1 ¶ 3-43b; USACC Pamphlet 145-4 ¶ 8-5a. They are also entitled to assistance in preparing for the board from a reasonably available military officer, though this officer cannot be serving as a Judge Advocate General. See Army Reg. 145-1 ¶ 3-43b; USACC Pamphlet 145-4 ¶ 8-5b(1). 5 “Mr. Moyer incorrectly relies on the 2023 version of Army Reg 145-1. That version of the regulation was not effective until after Mr. Moyer’s disenrollment was complete. The 1996 regulation was controlling at the time of Mr. Moyer’s disenrollment proceedings in 2022. A Rapid Action Revision of the regulation was issued in 2011 to implement the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010. However, the disenrollment procedures found in ¶ 3-43 were not changed at that time.” Tr. at 21:1–14 (“[GOVERNMENT:] Plaintiff’s counsel and we were in agreement that [the 1996 and 2011 versions of the relevant Army regulation] are the relevant version for this case. . . . [PLAINTIFF:] That’s accurate. . . . THE COURT: [F]or the purposes of this case, there’s no material difference between the 1996 version, the 2011 version and the 2023 version? [GOVERNMENT:] I think the 2023 version . . . reorganizes. . . . But as it relates to the 1996 versus the 2011 change, no.”). - 12 - Cadets may hire civilian counsel at their own expense, but counsel may only provide advice and may not advocate to the board during the hearing. See Army Reg. 145-1 ¶ 3-43b; USACC Pamphlet 145-4 ¶ 8-5b. The president of the disenrollment board should advise the cadet of their regulatory rights before the hearing begins, so the cadet fully understands their ability to participate in the proceedings. See USACC Pamphlet 145-4 ¶ 8-5a. Additionally, the cadet should be informed that they have the right to remain silent, and that no adverse inference will be drawn from their decision not to testify. See id. ¶ 8-5a(4). While DA Form 3881 (Rights Warning Procedure/Waiver Certificate) is recommended for documenting the notification of these rights, its use is not mandatory, as the disenrollment process is administrative, not criminal. See id. The board president simply follows a prescribed script when conducting the proceedings. See id. ¶ 8-1e. Following deliberation, the board makes findings and recommendations in light of the evidentiary standard, which is preponderance of the evidence. See id. ¶¶ 8-5d, 8-6. The findings and recommendations are reviewed by the appointing authority to ensure compliance with Army policy, and the PMS or other appointing official must indicate concurrence or non-concurrence with each recommendation regarding disenrollment, recoupment, or involuntary active duty. See id. ¶ 8-7a–b. If there is any non-concurrence, the appointing authority must explain the basis for the decision in writing. See id. The cadet is then provided an opportunity to rebut the board’s findings before a final decision is made, and the PMS must notify the cadet of their rebuttal rights and provide them with ten working days from receipt of the findings to submit a rebuttal. See id. ¶ 8-7c. Once all rebuttal materials are reviewed, the brigade commander or PMS forwards the board’s findings and all supporting documents to the USACC Commanding General for final action. See id. ¶ 8-8a(2). V. Whether the Court Has Jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Claims To properly address jurisdiction, the Court first clarifies the issues presented by plaintiff in his Complaint, briefings, and oral argument; second, the Court reviews the law applicable to ROTC disenrollment cases involving procedural error; and third, the Court analyzes whether it has jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims. A. Parties’ Arguments in Their Briefing and at Oral Argument To clarify plaintiff’s claims and requested relief, the Court first reviews their articulation in the Amended Complaint; second, the arguments in plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record; and third, clarifications made by the parties at oral argument.